In Wake of F-22 Ban, Japan Forging Ties with Europe (With a Warning to America)

For more than forty years, as part of an alliance with the United States, Japan was allowed access to some of the very best fighters in the world. A string of American fighters, starting with the F-86 Sabre, then the F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom and finally the F-15 provided the mainstay of the Air Self Defense Forces. Offering Japan first-rate fighters only nine years after World War II may sound odd, but America was convinced that postwar Japan was a vital strategic ally. The doors of the Arsenal of Democracy swung open wide and Japan (and America) benefitted enormously.

Of course, Japan didn’t realize that, forty years later, those doors would close a little bit and the F-15 would be the final first rank fighter it would have access to. In 1998, the so-called “Obey Amendment” to the U.S. defense budget prohibited the U.S. from exporting the F-22 Raptor abroad. Although practically nobody comes out and says it, the Obey Amendment is likely the result of transfers of U.S. technology from Israel to the People’s Republic of China, which resulted in aircraft such as the J-10. Realistically the likelihood of an arms transfer ban specifically targeting Israel is exactly zero, and as a result the F-22 was banned from export to any country, no matter how loyal to the United States.

Separated at birth? IAI Lavi and J-10 fighters, comparison.

Since the passage of the act the official line has been that the F-35 is the American fighter reserved for Japan. Various efforts, some led by members of Congress have tried to overturn the F-22 ban, but those have run into the reality that nobody could promise that F-22 technology would ever be leaked again…especially by a certain country. So the F-22 remained the sole ward of the United States Air Force, and when the production line ended, the tooling was put into storage in the unlikely event the aircraft would be resurrected.

Now, imagine you’re Japan. You’ve enjoyed cozy relationship with the American Military-Industrial Complex for decades, getting the very best fighters, and even the right to produce those fighters, under license, in Japan. You’ve held up your end of the bargain, and you expect the relationship to continue. You limit your own fighter production program to licensed builds, not bothering to develop indigenous designs. Why should you?

Along comes the Obey Amendment…and you’re screwed. You have an aging fleet of F-4EJ Phantom fighters you expected to replace with F-22s, and that’s not going to happen. America instead offers you the F-35 Lightning II, a multi-role fighter over budget, behind schedule, and worst of all, it doesn’t suit your requirements. You wanted a two engine air superiority fighter ? You can’t have it. Why? Because you can’t be trusted with the technology. Why now? Because we said so.

Do you know anyone excited about this plane? Neither do I.

If you were Japan, would that not make you more than a little uneasy about your access to future weapons systems? Especially with China breathing down your neck?

The answer is yes, that is making Japan very uneasy. And it is taking steps. Consider this article that came out just today.

Japan, France to start talks to jointly develop military equipment

SINGAPORE–Despite Japanese objections to France’s military equipment sales to China and Russia, Japan has agreed to hold official talks on joint weapons development with France.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera on June 2 met with his French counterpart on the sidelines of the Asia Security Summit here. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian showed a strong interest in Japanese weapons-related technology, and proposed that the two nations jointly develop military weapons and equipment.

Onodera and Le Drian agreed that Japan and France will begin talks aimed at hammering out an agreement to carry out joint arms development, beginning with the bilateral summit scheduled for June 7 in Tokyo.

“I think there is no difference with France in our thinking on this,” Onodera told reporters after the meeting with Le Drian, showing his support for joint arms development efforts.

A little more than a year ago, Japan signed a similar deal with the U.K.

Japan, U.K. agree on arms development

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and British leader David Cameron agreed Tuesday in Tokyo to strengthen bilateral defense cooperation, including joint weapons development, in what will be the first such case since Japan eased its de facto ban on arms exports.

It is also the first time Japan has agreed to develop weapons with a country other than the United States.

Noda and Cameron agreed to launch at least one joint weapons program, according to a joint statement released after their 30-minute-long summit and one-hour working dinner at the prime minister’s office.

Japanese officials said the two leaders did not discuss specific weapons systems for development. But they did mention Rolls-Royce engine technology for helicopters during their talks, the officials said.

If you wanted partners in defense technology who have something to offer Japan, and who aren’t the United States, then France and the United Kingdom are your ideal choices. Japan is very clearly beginning to diversify its arms connections as a hedge against future technology bans from any one supplier. Who can say what the Americans are going to ban next?

Yes, these initial reports are vague. Yes Japan is indecisive, but when it pushes in a direction, it does so decisively. The F-35 Lightning II won the F-X fighter competition in part because of the U.S. – Japan alliance and the presence of American troops in Japan. The Eurofighter Typhoon lost because Japan has few, if any, concrete defense agreements with the Europeans and the closest European troops are in French Micronesia. But if the rules of the game have changed, that Japan no longer has a tacit guarantee of the best weapons on the market, then it is in Japan’s interests to ensure that foreign industry, or even domestic industry, can provide a substitute. With the relaxing of Japanese arms export laws, Japan may even jointly develop and sell abroad weapons systems that compete with American designs.

The blanket ban of the Obey Amendment may prove both a tactical and strategic mistake for the American Military-Industrial Complex and its gilded array of weapons systems.

Share:

A contributor and editor at the blog War Is Boring, Kyle Mizokami started Japan Security Watch in 2010 to further understand Japan's defenses and security policy.
Kyle Mizokami has 530 post(s) on Japan Security Watch

7 comments

Japan is a major US ally, and is free to choose whatever weaponry works for them. However, this “warning” by Mr. Mizokami is meaningless. The only country that will support Japan militarily and logistically in any shooting-war with China is the US. The European Union will choose its profitable ties with China over Japan any day. This is because China allows European manufacturing plants to exist on its home soil and sell products to its population very profitably. And, where such enterprises exist they can then be held at risk by the Chinese. On the other hand, the Japanese will not do the same to European trade interests if they decide to stay neutral.

On the other hand, the strategic interests of the US in the Pacific region supersede any short term economic loss forced upon it by a similar situation, with its own Chinese manufacturing interests. Therefore the only nation that would be willing to re-supply Japan with advanced weaponry during a shooting war, would be the US. The US is also the only nation that CAN re-supply Japan. Where is the mighty European pacific fleet? Air Force and Air Tankers? How about long range nuclear attack sub fleet? How do the Europeans propose to protect their lines of supply to Japan? Will they go to war to do so? The fact is, logistically speaking Europe is a paper tiger that can barely produce enough weaponry to defend itself, cannot self-deploy outside of its region, and is not willing to go out on a limb for a country on the other side of the planet. Consider that if China was victorious over Japan, Europe would easily continue profitable relations with the new Chinese “co-prosperity sphere”.

Finally, there is the small matter of the advanced weaponry being offered by a parsimonious US. The F-35, whatever Mr Mikozami thinks of it, is already in Low Rate Initial Production, is being thoroughly tested, and is far more advanced than any of the European fighters, bar none. It is also the only one with full-aspect stealth. The F-35 also comes in the “B” vertical take-off version being used by the US Marine Corps. This version would turn Japan’s helicopter carriers (such as Hyuga), into full-fledged pocket aircraft carriers that can carry out offensive strike operations. No European aircraft in production can do this. Japan also gets Patriot anti-missile systems, AEGIS anti-ballistic missile systems for it destroyers, smart munitions, and access to US satellite intelligence. If the Japanese are upset because they are not getting F-22 technology. Too bad. The US also does not share Trident missile technology, nuclear attack sub technology, intelligence satellite technology, stealth drone technology, stealth bomber technology — the list is endless — and Japan does likewise with it’s tech. As stated earlier, Japan can choose whatever weaponry it wants, however it had better choose wisely because one day it may actually need it.

‘However, this “warning” by Mr. Mizokami is meaningless. The only country that will support Japan militarily and logistically in any shooting-war with China is the US. ”

The warning in the article refers to the possibility that Japan may be forced into domestic arms production that could eventually compete with the United States on the export market. The tactical mistake would be the loss to the U.S. defense industry of the Japanese market, the strategic mistake would be to turn Japan into a competitor.

As you said, the Japanese are free to buy from whoever they want. As I stated in the article, Europe has nothing to offer the Japanese other than technology. But we should not take for granted the idea that Japan must buy American weapons because of the US-Japanese alliance. We (the U.S.) need Japan as much as Japan needs us. If the Japanese decide to build their own fighters, or buy European ones, is that going to make the U.S. walk away? No. The relationship is too important. The Japanese have leverage in this game too. Let’s not pretend they don’t.

“This (B) version would turn Japan’s helicopter carriers (such as Hyuga), into full-fledged pocket aircraft carriers that can carry out offensive strike operations.”

…that could, optimistically, carry less than ten B models. That is, if they fit on the elevators and they harden the flight deck. For $1.9 billion, or the cost of 2 Soryu SSKs. I’m not sure that Japan is dumb enough to put 1,000 people at sea just to put ten fighters in the air. That has a track record of working out poorly for them.

“The F-35, whatever Mr Mikozami thinks of it,”

I wish there were alternatives. But as you point out, there are none.

” If the Japanese are upset because they are not getting F-22 technology. Too bad. The US also does not share Trident missile technology, nuclear attack sub technology, intelligence satellite technology, stealth drone technology, stealth bomber technology — the list is endless — and Japan does likewise with it’s tech.”

Yes, but none of that technology was previously shared and then pulled back. Remember when Menachem Begin said that a country that had the F-15 no longer resembled a country that didn’t? We were in a standoff with the Soviets then, who would have loved F-15 technology. And yet we sold the F-15 abroad right away. Now that we’re facing the Chinese with the F-22, what’s changed?

” As stated earlier, Japan can choose whatever weaponry it wants, however it had better choose wisely because one day it may actually need it.”

KYLE MIZOKAMI says: “The warning in the article refers to the possibility that Japan may be forced into domestic arms production that could eventually compete with the United States on the export market. The tactical mistake would be the loss to the U.S. defense industry of the Japanese market, the strategic mistake would be to turn Japan into a competitor.”.

It is true, the US could be creating a competitor by doing so. But I believe it is not likely for three reasons. The first is the negative Japanese public sentiment over arms exports to other countries. This may change over time, but not for the foreseeable future. The second, and related, is the Japanese aversion to providing additional munitions to a customer nation embroiled in a shooting war with a third party. This in fact was one of the main objections brought up in Japan when they did not want to give export permission for SM3 Missile technology they co-developed with the US, to third parties. The third reason, is that these high-end systems require dozens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to develop. Given the fact that the domestic Japanese defense market is not big enough to defray these costs (it is arguable if even the US domestic market is), Japan would be “competing” to lose a significant amount of money (think France and the Rafale). Japan’s money would be better spent on developing (for example) smart munitions to domestically supply their needs for these critical items during wartime.

” that could, optimistically, carry less than ten B models. That is, if they fit on the elevators and they harden the flight deck. For $1.9 billion, or the cost of 2 Soryu SSKs. I’m not sure that Japan is dumb enough to put 1,000 people at sea just to put ten fighters in the air. That has a track record of working out poorly for them”

The Hyuga class is a well-built ship, maybe even overbuilt. 1.9 billion is a standard cost for any high-end vessel today (Arleigh Burke, Kongo Class, San Antonio Class, Virginia Class etc.), anyway a Soryu cannot provide air cover, and high end war is expensive. Regardless, even the US Navy is going to have to reinforce and modify its Wasp and America class LHD’s to take the stress of the F-35b. I would argue that a Hyuga class vessel with eight stealth capable F35-B models, fully armed with smart munitions, would be quite formidable. It would give Japan an excellent way to exercise persistent airpower, for air supremacy and ground attack missions. Especially now, that Japan may be embroiled in contests with China over who owns what island, where China has an aircraft carrier (or more) and Japan does not. Finally, the Hyuga has a complement of approximately 380 operating crew. If you are generous and add another 80 crew to this complement to fly and care for the F-35b air wing, we are now at 460 crew (not 1000). These 460 would however be providing effective ground attack and air cover services for thousands of Japanese Marines. The poor prior Japanese track record regarding aircraft carriers had more to do with bad leadership decisions, and not the quality of the Japanese aircraft, vessels, or crew. Remember they were fighting another deeply experienced Pacific maritime power.

“Yes, but none of that technology was previously shared and then pulled back. Remember when Menachem Begin said that a country that had the F-15 no longer resembled a country that didn’t? We were in a standoff with the Soviets then, who would have loved F-15 technology. And yet we sold the F-15 abroad right away. Now that we’re facing the Chinese with the F-22, what’s changed?”

In this area, I think both you and I would be prognosticating, since neither of us actually knows why F-22 was not offered. From my readings, my take is the following; At the time, the US has spent more money on the F-22 and its systems than any aircraft in the history of man kind (even after adjusting for inflation). They drew on all of the best learnings of the Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks including the B2 program — radar evading coatings & shaping, advanced radars, etc. This was so cutting-edge at the time, that even though Lockheed was trying to sell this aircraft to Japan, someone in the US government said “no, these are our technological crown jewels, and no one is getting them” (not the Japanese, not the Australians, not the Israelis, and not the Europeans). Essentially, the US paid dearly for this capabllity, and did not want it used against them. Remember the saying “nations have interests not friends”? Well I do not like to think so, I think two peoples can be friends, however real perils lie in changes of governments, and these cannot be foreseen.

“Actually it can’t. F-22.”

Who knows, if China keeps antagonizing everyone in the neighborhood (like the Soviet Union did), maybe that will change. Either way, F35 is formidable indeed.

You could have put a J-10 picture next to a Eurofighter picture, it would have had as much resemblance. There was a gap of almost 2 decades between the end of the Lavi project (1987) and the J-10 (operational 2003), and both J-10 general designer Song Wencong and PLAAF’s major Zhang Weigang have stated that it isn’t a derivative.

The truth is that China did learn about fly-by-wire from cooperation with Israel, but the massive changes after Tienanmen Square wrecked hopes of further cooperation (as they did with many western firms), and forced huge design changes to any fighter blueprints they might have had. Different avionics, engines, balance, etc. means that you’re basically building a new fighter. Which explains the 15+ year break.

All this is very public domain knowledge, so the repeated insinuations that the Obey Amendment is about Israel stand here without any backup. And that’s far too serious a charge to make without backup.

One could more plausibly cite Iranian cooperation in giving Russia a look at its F-14s as impetus – but then, the only reason the F-14 existed was because the Shah backed it at a crucial time. Or, one could cite fears that the Saudis would buy America’s most advanced technologies, and then suffer the Shah’s fate.

The hell of it is, the article didn’t need that mistake, and really didn’t even need an explanation of the Obey Amendment. It wasn’t in any way central to the article.

“There was a gap of almost 2 decades between the end of the Lavi project (1987) and the J-10 (operational 2003), and both J-10 general designer Song Wencong and PLAAF’s major Zhang Weigang have stated that it isn’t a derivative.”

Without getting into the credibility of the Chinese government, the J-10 was China’s first 4th generation fighter. A gap of fifteen years, even with technical assistance from Israel, doesn’t strike me as unreasonable. That is even assuming the J-10 project was started immediately after the cancellation of the Lavi.

As you also mentioned, Chinese aircraft projects were thrown into disarray after Tiananmen Square. So, assuming that the Chinese realized in 1991 that they needed to start on a new fighter (particularly after Desert Storm) we’re now looking at 11 years. Again, don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Janes has reported on the J-10/Lavi connection, and CSIS reports it as fact.

“All this is very public domain knowledge, so the repeated insinuations that the Obey Amendment is about Israel stand here without any backup. And that’s far too serious a charge to make without backup.”

I remember the Obey Amendment debate, and the funny thing was, as far as I can remember there was no discussion whatsoever of which country they had in mind. If the reason was the Iranians and their Tomcat transfer I’m sure someone would have come out and said it. Whatever it was, it was big enough for us to walk away from tens of billions of overseas F-22 sales. That also says to me the reason for the Obey Amendment is much more recent than 1979.

Maybe it’s the country that CSIS believes helped the Chinese build the J-10. Personally I’m persuaded.

“The hell of it is, the article didn’t need that mistake, and really didn’t even need an explanation of the Obey Amendment. It wasn’t in any way central to the article.”

One of my points in the article is that the U.S. risks alienating Japan because of the perfidy of another ally, and that the F-22 export ban has nothing to do with not selling advanced technology to Japan.

Japan should be much more concerned the U.S. was foolish enough to cancel the F-22 program when all the R&D had been paid for and the per unit cost wasn’t that much higher than the F-35. The F-22 is equivalent to where the F-15 stood against other aircraft in 1972. We should have built more than 187 production models. Survivable air-superiority fighters are the most important conventional weapon systems, especially in a region with large expanses of ocean.

Japan would have been better off offering to foot part of the cost of a certain number of F-22s in exchange for them being permanently based in Japan.

The relationship between Japan and the U.S. is the most crucial in keeping peace in the Pacific region. U.S. reluctance to export something so expensive and advanced is reasonable, but it is unreasonable for the U.S. to let allies or their enemies wonder about American commitment to our friends.